City Council on 2026-03-10 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Meeting Time: 03-10-26 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2026-03-10 6:00 PM -
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
03-10-26
18:00
55 5 3 1 1
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
City Council on 2026-03-10 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 03-10-26 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
J.1. 26-0304 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public 1 0 0 1 N.1. 26-0205 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING
JOINING THE SOUTH BAY REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST AND
SELECTING A CITY REPRESENTATIVE TO SERVE ON THE SOUTH
BAY REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST BOARD OF DIRECTORS
1 1 0 0
N.2. 26-0141 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AN
ANALYSIS OF BEACH CITIES TRANSIT YOUTH RIDERSHIP AND
PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
2 1 1 0
N.3. 26-0306 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY
COUNCIL ON THE DRAFT ZONING AMENDMENTS PROPOSED FOR
ARTESIA AND AVIATION BOULEVARDS IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN-LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE
1 1 0 0
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for J.1. 26-0304 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public Overall Sentiment
Pat Healy
Location:
Submitted At: 4:44pm 03-10-26
eComment on Mayor’s Veto (neutral)
I watched the February 24, 2026 hearing and the March 3 City Council meeting regarding the Manhattan Beach Smoke Shop appeal. After following the testimony and reviewing the administrative record, it became clear that the issues involved in the case were more complex than the simplified narrative currently circulating on social media.
During the hearing there were extensive discussions regarding which ordinance was in effect at the time of the citation, the administrative standards for revoking a business license, the scope of the City’s penalty authority under the earlier ordinance, and whether certain enforcement actions could expose the City to potential legal risk.
One concern I have raised throughout this process is transparency. The February 24 hearing itself has received relatively few public views online, which means many residents likely have not watched the full proceedings or heard the detailed legal arguments that were presented. At the same time, the Mayor publicly discussed his veto of the Council’s 3–2 decision on social media before the written veto message was readily accessible to the public.
After searching through the City’s agenda materials and records, I eventually located the Mayor’s veto as an attachment within the Legistar file for the item. While the document appears to have been technically published, it was not readily visible through the agenda materials that most residents rely on when following City Council actions.
Given the amount of public discussion taking place in the community, it would be helpful if documents of this significance were made more visible and clearly linked within the meeting record so residents can easily review the official reasoning for themselves. Ensuring that key documents such as mayoral veto messages are easy to locate helps promote transparency, informed civic discussion, and public trust in the decision-making process.
Pat Healy
Agenda Item: eComments for N.1. 26-0205 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING JOINING THE SOUTH BAY
REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST AND SELECTING A CITY REPRESENTATIVE TO SERVE ON THE SOUTH BAY REGIONAL
HOUSING TRUST BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Overall Sentiment
Alex Fineman
Location:
Submitted At: 5:37pm 03-10-26
South Bay Forward strongly urges the City to join the South Bay Regional Housing Trust. Several of our South Bay neighbor cities, including Torrance in the past two weeks, have already taken this step, which unlocks state and county funding that would otherwise be inaccessible.
Joining the SBRHT is a natural and necessary extension of Redondo Beach’s commendable outreach efforts to our unhoused community. While the City has done excellent work with direct outreach, the SBRHT provides the regional financial infrastructure needed to create the permanent affordable housing that ultimately ends the cycle of homelessness. By appointing an elected official to this board, Redondo Beach will ensure it has a seat at the table in directing regional resources toward local solutions.
Alex Fineman, on behalf of South Bay Forward
Agenda Item: eComments for N.2. 26-0141 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AN ANALYSIS OF BEACH
CITIES TRANSIT YOUTH RIDERSHIP AND PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Overall Sentiment
Alex Fineman
Location:
Submitted At: 5:42pm 03-10-26
South Bay Forward supports the proposed route changes for Lines 102 and 109. This reconfiguration is a significant step forward for local transit utility. For the first time, South Redondo residents will have direct one-seat access to the K Line at the Marine Ave station, as well as the Redondo Beach Transit Center. This creates a seamless transit link to LAX and the broader Metro rail and bus network.
Furthermore, connecting North Redondo residents directly to Riviera Village, and South Redondo residents to RUHS and points north via a single ride, makes the bus a viable alternative to driving for daily errands and school commutes, which can potentially alleviate traffic that plagues north-south routes in the City.
We recognize that the BCT system is at its capacity for its fleet and hours at its current funding level, and in addition to the proposed changes before Council, we urge the City to seek additional funding in the future to further enhance service and route coverage.
Alex Fineman on behalf of South Bay Forward
Grace Peng
Location:
Submitted At: 3:31pm 03-10-26
I strongly oppose replacing existing 32 foot buses with 25 foot buses. We have incredibly shrinking buses. Metro used to run 40 foot buses before we assumed Local Control to degrade bus service. We replaced 40 foot buses with 36 foot and then 32 foot buses. School Tripper buses are packed. Bus pass ups, when waiting passengers are passed up at the bus stop because the buses are already too full, are common before and after school. This induces people to drive and increases traffic congestion.
How was Metro able to run 40 foot buses along this route in 2000 and BCT transit cannot turn 32 foot buses? Is it because we are flouting state laws about parking at intersections? We are not enforcing AB 413 banning parking near intersections. Let's try enforcing the law before we punish the kids with ever shrinking buses.
People want direct routes. That's why moving the Riviera Village to the Pier and RUHS to the 102 route could be helpful. However, 102 is already a Frankenroute that stitches together two routes badly, one going N-S, and another going E-W. Straighten out the 102 so that it goes mostly N-S from the RB station south along Vail, then jog over to Rindge. That will save a 20 minute detour each way. We could run more school trips if we lower the roundtrip time per bus.
With the service hours we save on the 102 & 109, we can run a new line the full length of Artesia between Hawthorne and Aviation, then south along Aviation to RUHS. This serves the Golden Hills and Aviation Corridor students currently not served by BCT. It could be useful for non students as well. This will also serve the students and other residents of the new housing we zoned for in the Galleria area.
Finally, work with RBUSD to sign RBUSD students up for the Metro GoPass program. That would give free rides to RBUSD students on Metro, Torrance Transit, BCT and many more transit agencies that run standard 40' buses. If they grow up riding 40' buses, they and their parents won't by intimidated by them.
Agenda Item: eComments for N.3. 26-0306 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE DRAFT ZONING AMENDMENTS PROPOSED FOR ARTESIA AND
AVIATION BOULEVARDS IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE GENERAL PLAN-LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE Overall Sentiment
Alex Fineman
Location:
Submitted At: 5:41pm 03-10-26
South Bay Forward supports the Planning Commission’s recommendations regarding the Artesia and Aviation corridors, with the qualification that Community Development Director Wiener’s’s recommendation to consider the impact of AB 2011 be heeded. In particular, thoughtfully approaching these zoning updates to proactively include mixed use is a positive step toward working within state regulations. By intentionally zoning for mixed-use development - specifically allowing housing on higher floors to preserve ground-floor commercial - the City can choose a path of local leadership over state-mandated passivity. Rather than fighting against laws like AB 2011, this approach allows the City to retain local input on design and commercial preservation while still promoting the housing growth required by the state and needed by our workforce.
However, we must caution that the goal of preserving commercial vitality will be at risk if parking requirements remain rigid. If the City mandates excessive on-site parking for these new units, the resulting sea of asphalt or intrusive driveways will decimate the very commercial streetscape the City seeks to protect. We urge the Council to pair this new zoning with modern parking reforms to ensure that these corridors are walkable, vibrant, and economically viable.
Alex Fineman on behalf of South Bay Forward